[Debate Thread] Brightness of the reactor glow in the Lugano pictures and reactor temperature

As suggested by the moderators, this is the debate thread parallel to the technical one. Please keep all non-technical comments, etc. in this thread. Thanks.

H-G B:(distilled version)

Quote

You may remember that... the resistors were made from a very advanced... secret material. Various data... show... that Rossi... lie about the resistors. this... cover-up did nothing to help the issue with overloading the current probes. ...we now know the probes were overloaded with a factor more than six.

I don't understand how your complicated conspiracy theory is supposed to work.

Quote

I don't understand how your complicated conspiracy theory is supposed to work.

H-G reckons there is data that shows the active wire currents (known to be much larger than the dummy currents for some reason - various candidates) were such as to saturate the current clamps used to measure power.

If you look at my paper I actually considered this, but reckoned it was unclear. However H-G has more info than me about the electrics here and he could be right.

For whatever reason - Rossi's tests always have definable error modes that create these very large (X3 or so) errors.

The emissivity error withoput doubt creates X3. But there could also be some error due to current clamp saturation which would mean the real input power was higher than the measured power. Since potential errors on output measurement are large we cannot rule this out.

It all depends on whether they were using 100A or 1000A clamps (we don't know) and on what is the crest factor of the waveform.

You need to be skilled to realise this, because the measurements were without doubt within the RMS current and voltage spec for accurate measuement. And the PCE-830 can cope with arbitrary crest factors (spiky waveforms) as long as the current and voltage measuements do not saturate. That is what we cannot know - voltage is OK but current may well saturate with the 100A clamps.

I'm inclined to think that on this test where he did not control all the conditions Rossi would if possible use the best setup, with the maximum number of errors giving positive COP. That way if some are nullified by different conditions some still remain.

So now Mr. Clarke is a mind reader?
Or maybe I am a fortune teller, since I guessed that Clarke would answer my last post instead of H-G B.

So the reasoning sequence is: the clamps were measuring a current out of range, so the current is over or underestimated, so therefore all the electrical calculations based on the report are wrong. So we have, then, no idea of the actual power consumption. Therefore a COP of 1 based on any electrical theory is a waste of calculation effort. We don't even know what went in because current is wrong, any resistance calculated from those currents are therefore wrong. So the magic resistor theory is a waste of time. Any threefold error is a figment of our imaginations and math based on bad data. Any apparent consistent mathematical trends are purely coincidental.

Attacks on LENR not just. Too simple system is obtained. Who does not want to lose the dividends. As a result - it is trying to slow down. Only the genie is already out of the bottle. Those who experience work - know works. The two conditions:
1. Slow heating
2. Before 1200..1300S temperature.
If the reaction does not go - a sharp temperature drop at 50-100S. for start.
All!
And those who do not - violate (intentionally?) Some of the conditions.
And the critics - do not conduct experiments. They just criticize, basically.

Hi s-grey,

you are saying there are known conditions which if followed mean free power of kW at high power and energy density (easily measurable)?

That is exactly what MFMP have been trying hard to show.

Have you talked to them - because they seem quite sensible and will follow any credible advice - or do you view them as part of the "intentional" doing experiments that don't work group?

As for critics - most scientists would say that those who provide detailed analysis and criticism of experimental results do a valuable job - I am sure MFMP think that because they encourage that process.

I do not believe the Lugano testers where so incompetent not to note 'OL' on the PCE 830 screen as shown in the figure 5 in Lugano.

This was said on ECW of the picture:

"The photo ......... has been made on purpose from the Professors............the photo has been taken during the set up of the measurement stuff and they were controlling that the PCE830 was surely able to read perfectly the waves also in extreme conditions: for this reason......the photo shows the wave also when the system has been put in overload; you can understand it from the acronym “OL” that you can read on the display, while the wave is perfectly described by the instrument."

Thomas Clarke, i saw with my own eyes LENR effect. Moreover, several times. And, all fixed. I do not know why they can not. Maybe it's the preparation of the material. Probably
should be pre-Ni and hydrogen, it is my Ni + H2 in the process of a
gradual rise in temperature, a day or two, with a constant influx of H2.
What with the processes taking place there do not know. Deceive and mislead no sense that he saw - and then describe.
Here: http://jivisam.ru/page/moja-re…ht/next/4#experiment_13.0
http://jivisam.ru/page/moja-re…ht/next/4#experiment_15.0
Frequent is: http://jivisam.ru/uploads/ener…-28.10_.15-850-216s_.jpeg (at the time of cooling the heat emission).
And besides me, there are successful experiments carried out with much better equipment. They're all lying?

Quote

So the reasoning sequence is: the clamps were measuring a current out of range, so the current is over or underestimated, so therefore all the electrical calculations based on the report are wrong. So we have, then, no idea of the actual power consumption. Therefore a COP of 1 based on any electrical theory is a waste of calculation effort. We don't even know what went in because current is wrong, any resistance calculated from those currents are therefore wrong. So the magic resistor theory is a waste of time. Any threefold error is a figment of our imaginations and math based on bad data. Any apparent consistent mathematical trends are purely coincidental.

You might well have guessed I'd answer since I spent quite a while thinking about the electrical issues. I don't however understand the tone of your post. you seem to imply i am biassed? if so, in what way?

Your argument here is full of assumptions and incorrect deduction.

"the clamps were measuring a current out of range" That is what H-G believes, and it is certainly possible - I'd only say i don't know because the detailed data to check this is not available. H-G however makes deductions - I do not - and I have not looked at this enough to be sure he is wrong. I'm just cautious because i don't know whether this is an issue myself.

"the current is over or under estimated" Clamp saturation - if it happens - can only ever cause the current and hence power to be under-estimated, therefore COP to be over-estimated. I can't rule that out because of the major uncertainty in output power due to transparency issues that (as Rossi likes to say) could be positive or negative.

"any resistance calculated from those currents is wring". Well again, wrong only in a well defined way (too high).

"So the magic resistor theory is a waste of time. " If you mean by that the idea that there is a 3 fold change between dummy and active with NO change between the two active temperatures due to an NCR resistor - that has always looked highly unlikely. A much better answer which gives the same characteristics (and what i prefer) is that the electrical circuit changes from Wye to Delta so making the same resistors appear to be 3x lower. That is neat, and has the merit of explaining the X3 noted resistance variation, though it does not directly affect power calculations.

"Any threefold error is a figment of our imaginations and math based on bad data." I've got no idea why you say this. Do you think I've argued it? When? Where? In fact I argue the opposite, that everything can be nicely explained.

"Any apparent consistent mathematical trends are purely coincidental." Well there certainly is a coincidence. We have three distinct known mechanisms all of which will give X3 change:

(1) delta -> wye configuration change (X3 in Joule heating, no change to COP)
(2) reversed clamp: (X3 to both)
(3) emissivity errors (X3 - X3.3 - alters with temperature explaining the "acceleration" - change in COP, no change to Joule heating)

Both (1) and (2) are speculative. (3) is definite.

Then we have the major errors with unknown magnitude:
(4) output power due to unknown total emissivity (could be + or - on COP)
(5) input power under-measurement due to clamp saturation. We don't know this happens - but IF it did, it would make the COP appear higher than it really is. This effect could potentially be large. If it happens it could happen only in the active test, where currents are much higher. My best guess is it does not happen, but that is only a guess and H-G may have looked at the matter more than me.

I do find it fascinating that two quite complex and potentially very large positive for COP errors (3) and (5) emerge as possible in this one experiment, and both do not show in the dummy - though the emissivity error only does not show because the profs "altered" the figures. I think it very possible Rossi could be making both and seeing incredible large apparent COPs internally.

Of course (4) could possibly be positive for COP though more likely negative. But I'm an optimist. I go for (1) + (3) which together explain everything.

i rather expect Rossi wanted the reactor to be tested at higher powers, when (5) would become more likely.

Quote

Thomas Clarke, i saw with my own eyes LENR effect.

With respect I'm not sure eyes can measure power out accurately enough?

Quote

And besides me, there are successful experiments carried out with much better equipment. They're all lying?

Who said anyone (other than Rossi, who it is generally acknowledged makes quite a number of false statements) was lying?

The confusion of the Swedish testers over the Lugano measurements must surely show that even clever and (well trained?) people can make very bad experimental errors.

The subtlety of those errors shows how easily they can be overlooked, and never found without very detailed data and analysis.

Quote

Maybe it's the preparation of the material. Probably should be pre-Ni and hydrogen, it is my Ni + H2 in the process of a gradual rise in temperature, a day or two, with a constant influx of H2.

Well, if they know you have these replicable positive results i'm sure they'd be very happy to follow your protocol and validate it.

No, of course not visible, the graph clearly.
I can provide measurement results in the second by second http://www.jivisam.ru/uploads/energia/16.1_.16_.jpg
----
1452952281 32 1032 645 118
1452952282 32 1032 645 109
1452952283 32 1031 646 111
1452952284 33 1031 646 111
-----
1 - time in Unix format
2, the voltage across the heater
3, data from the ADC
4-O (divided by three)
5 filling PWM
====================

temperature ADC is considered as follows:
ADC termo = (ADC termo -42) * 0.4717;
42 - offset. 0 degrees to the ADC = 42.
---
Power multiplied by 3. In fact - it is necessary to divide by 3.
resistance spiral .. I do not remember, did not record .. 1.9 ohm. Power thought so:
Voltage = 9.2 * (0.01929 * ADC_mega); (divisor 8.2 com and 1k resistor)
Power = p_nagruz / 255 * Shim_mega; Shim_mega - PWM duty ratio.
Power supply - parametric, transformer. 30K microfarads capacitance.
These data are sufficient?

Antoine10FF: My apologies that it was not on writing.

Thomas, if the current measurements are at least close to reality, then the "complex conspiracy theory" (yes, exaggerated by me, but partially justified by the use of the term "cover-up"), does not seem to follow, and I do not understand what H-G B was getting at. That is why I hoped that H-G B would have answered, rather than someone else.

I added the "overestimate" to cover the bases. I am not sure how quickly an inductive clamp can de-saturate, once saturated, and how that might affect subsequent readings/pulses. If 1000 A clamps were used, perhaps then the low amp readings would be inaccurate. That would be worth testing by someone with access to a PCE-830.

Thomas & Branzell,

Please keep peripheral comments in the debate thread. This thread is for calculations and technical arguments. Thanks.

Quote

Your argument here is full of assumptions and incorrect deduction.

I fail to see how, if the current was measured wrong, then any calculations using that wrong "data" can be right. Especially resistance, since we have no voltage data, except for the mains. Using only some Joule heating figures (calculated by the report authors) and one current measurement (possibly in a different electrical configuration), a somewhat wobbly construction of electrical values for various things have been obtained. Cut the legs off by invalidating current (especially when it is derived by de-construction of other data, not actually reported as measurements for the active run) and the entire construction collapses. Then discussion of resistance is futile.